Pregnant girls, by guest blogger Lulu

There is a pregnancy epidemic right now at the high school where I used to run a girls’ group. All the time I am shocked and saddened to see another young girl with a growing belly or another with babe in arms.

There is no stigma at all. Whatever happened to shame or pressuring boys to “do the right thing”? Gone are the rumors, the marginalization, the “slut” comments, the judgment of others, the pressure of peers that encourage waiting and responsibility. There simply is no stigma. In fact, the boys strut like proud roosters with their girl. The girl basks in the attention of her friends as they swarm around the mommy to be and kiss her belly.

And thanks to enforced ‘tolerance” and a determination not to marginalize girls who get pregnant in high-school, there is no longer any shame in it at all. That stinks because I believe shame is a very important emotion and shaper of our behavior.

The boys need to feel ashamed of themselves for using girls like objects, impregnating them, and then thinking their role as father is to drop in and buy pampers once in a while. The girls should be ashamed for casually bringing life into the world for their own selfish reasons (someone to love me, etc) instead of waiting until they could create an environment for the child that could provide stability and proper care.

I am angry with the school for not enforcing its own dress code. The low cut tops. The short shorts. The spaghetti straps. These are against the rules, but no one says anything. No one insists the girls cover up with an old hideous shirt from the lost and found, or old gym shorts. But they should.

Where are the staff to stop the fondling and making out on steps in full view of everyone on campus? Boys and girls. Girls and girls. No boundaries. No values.

So sad.

One exercise I did with my girls’ group a month or so ago was designed to have them explore their values versus their behavior. I wrote on the board these words:

Marriage
Sex
Relationship
Love
Dating
Living together
Baby

I asked the girls to make two lists. One was to put the words in the order in which they thought they should take place according to their values, and the other was to put the words in the order that they saw people actually following. They were allowed to leave words off if necessary.

Without fail, and to my surprise, all the girls wrote that the order things should take place in was this:

I pointed out to them that there was a huge discrepancy between their values and their behavior. I asked them why they thought that was. Some looked so sad as they described the pressures to perform sexually or to end up alone. (Of course, they were alone anyway as these “relationships” did not last).

Will these kids ever be able to have a healthy relationship? A sex life with a caring and loving partner? What about their children who will grow up in a world of single moms, with children from multiple dads, all with different last names?

I can’t help but look at this and want to scream at the faculty, at the entire educational institution, for failing these children so egregiously, for failing to teach any moral standards at all. These kids are steeped in political correctness. Lord knows, they’ve had tons of diversity education, safe sex talks, say no to drugs, global warming awareness, and Identity politics. But at home and at school, no one seems to be willing to provide moral standards. No one is willing to upset the darlings by reminding them that having a baby too young is grossly irresponsible and even tragic. Shouldn’t society put some peer pressure on them to remember that a baby is a human being and not a doll? It’s not a Paris Hilton Chihuahua status symbol to dress nicely and neglect. A baby is a human that requires immense amounts of time and energy to raise.

They forget that a baby doesn’t stay a baby for long. Soon it will become a child that will require discipline, education, supervision, guidance, a future. What kind of environment is best for raising this child? Would it be a fifteen year old girl, no longer with the baby’s father, leaving the bulk of child rearing to her own resentful mother, and bitter because she can’t do fun teenage activities any more, or a stable, committed, financially secure, adult couple?

No one has told them how a baby interferes with fun and parties. Young mommies either have to stay home and care for the baby or drag it along- but it hasn’t occurred to them that their friends won’t want a baby along screaming in McDonald’s or an arcade. Babies are demanding, not logical, and if young mommies or daddies scream and ht them will only cry more. Once a teen has a baby, life will never be the same again. Finishing school and achieving life goals are do-able mainly for those girls who have parents willing to care for the baby for them.

Maybe if pregnant girls were once again shuffled off campus to a pregnant girl school it would be less glamorous and rewarding. Maybe the dads could be instantly shuffled into family court to be forced to take responsibility. Maybe along with sex ed the kids could get some values. Maybe the church should rise to the challenge and let young men know that impregnating girls is not a sign of manhood. Having sperm is no great accomplishment. Waiting to make a baby until you are mature and self-sufficient, and creating a whole and intact family, however, is a sign of manhood and maturity. We need to return societal pressure and judgment. Kids are falling apart from a lack of boundaries and moral standards. And they will take society with them.

I have yet to meet parents who say they wish their daughter became pregnant in high school (or even middle school), or that their son became an absentee father.

A final thought. In the past, and not so very long ago, girls were expected to marry as virgins. OK, many didn’t make it, but many did. Fear of pregnancy, social stigma, and wanting to be a “good” rather than a “fast” girl had a lot to do with it. But beyond that, by withholding sex and making the guys work for it- earn it, really- by getting a job and by marriage, the girls were forcing the guys to become civilized. Sex is a huge human drive and guys will work very hard to get it, and if becoming a responsible man and provider is the way to get it, by golly, guys will do it.

Now there is no incentive to be civilized. All the sex a guy can get without even buying her a soda, getting girls pregnant is a notch on a guy’s studly belt (so to speak), and he really has no parenting or financial obligations. Hey, it’s optional. And everyone is degraded. The babies suffer because they are born to a child and a shadow.

Has this generation degenerated to the human equivalent of dogs humping?

So very very sad.

I will keep you posted. I, for one, plan to react and bring in a series of speakers, former teen moms, their moms, and so on, to bring the kids a taste of reality. How will they know, if no one teaches them?

Share this:

I realize that Zach has no personal opinions, and is content to parrot whatever government or leftist line he can access on the Internet. So I guess he cannot tell me his philosophical justifications for why it is the government’s frickin’ business what people do with their genitals, and its business to tell them whether they should get pregnant or not.

suek: This is _not_ about the religions themselves – it is about the common values shared by those religions. Do you not see the difference?
Yes, we understand the distinction. Let’s look at your statement again.
suek: In the past, the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values. Per your statement, we only have to look at U.S. culture to know what those values were. They included keeping slaves, persecuting Catholics, breaking Indian treaties, nativism, Jim Crow, and so on. Those aren’t the only American values, of course, but they certainly do relate to any notion of “universality”.

You should be able to understand the point, but to make it explicit, you seem to believe in an imaginary past where your personal notion of Judeo-Christian values were universally shared.

suek: Lulu says her school has a dress code, but it is not enforced. She says there are rules about intimate interactions between students, but these are not enforced.

Yes, it sounds like her school has a multitude of problems. However, as we have shown, it is not representative.

suek: One of those values is that hedonism is the most desired value to be attained, self-discipline the least.

Please provide some justification for the claim that public schools teach hedonism as the most desired value.

Charles Martel

Per your statement, we only have to look at U.S. culture to know what those values were. They included keeping slaves, persecuting Catholics, breaking Indian treaties, nativism, Jim Crow, and so on. Those aren’t the only American values, of course, but they certainly do relate to any notion of “universality”.

This is a perfect example of what happens when somebody abdicates thinking for himself and decides that Howard Zinn’s theory of U.S. history makes any sort of sense.

Notice the blanket indictment of the entirety of U.S. culture, a huge fallacy. By Zach’s warped reckoning (did we seriously expect better?) everybody in the United States kept slaves, hated Catholics, suported Jim Crow, etc. So, soldiers did not die to end slavery, Catholics never thrived in America, Jim Crow was not eventually defeated by the GOP (with some help from renegade Democrats). In Zachworld, the sins of some were the sins of all, and the millions of decent people who never committed those wrongs and actively worked against them are disqualified from consideration when we discuss American exceptionalism.

The irony here is that Zach is unqualified to discuss religion or moral values, given his inability to understand what he Wikis or plagiarizes (for example, his comments on Luther were breathtakingly inept, and his ignorance of Islam is apparent to all here.) The best he can do is lift from Zinn. It would be a hoot to discuss Xianity or Islam with Zach in real time. Without his hive mates and canned memes for support, he’d be lost. So I don’t blame him for pretending he doesn’t see the many calls here for him to man up.

Now. . .

I, Charles the Hammer, having spanked Zacky baaaaad for the umpteenth time, return to the Butler-VCU game.

suek

>>You should be able to understand the point, but to make it explicit, you seem to believe in an imaginary past where your personal notion of Judeo-Christian values were universally shared. Etc.>>

I apparently had the mistaken idea that we were discussing the last half of the twentieth century at least, and the entire twentieth century at most.

Aside from that, all of your “bad” stuff is exaggerated with the exception of slavery, which ended in 1865. We fought a war to establish the principle that slavery was not acceptable. How many died in that war? How many from the Union? That seems like a generally accepted value to me. If not in the borning, then in the maturity.

Danny Lemieux

Zach expostulates: Per your statement, we only have to look at U.S. culture to know what those values were. They included keeping slaves, persecuting Catholics, breaking Indian treaties, nativism, Jim Crow, and so on. Those aren’t the only American values, of course, but they certainly do relate to any notion of “universality”.

The Zach team seems to have trouble separating out the sacred from the profane. They confuse religious values with human nature. A religion provides a template of values an ideals that overlays the cultural and other profane values of societies. It provides a destination for society. It isn’t that Judeo-Christian religion makes people good, it is that it makes people better. For example, one cannot argue that Christianity had anything but a tempering effect on the excesses of Viking or Roman culture.

Let’s use slavery as an example: It was not Judeo-Christian that invented or exclusively practiced slavery in the world. In fact, slavery was practices pretty uniformly (the Jews were one of the first peoples to give it up, drawing from their religious values as the reason). Slavery was widely practiced throughout the Americas by the Amerindians (the Illinois’ tribe’s principle economic activity was slave trading). However, it is Judeo-Christian culture that established the template that turned Western European countries and the United States against slavery. The British and American abolitionists were the first to rebel against slavery in the 1800s, using Judeo-Christian religious precepts as their moral foundation against slavery (although the Vatican had tried unsuccessfully to excommunicate the Conquistadors who enslaved Indians in the New World as of the early 16th Century). Other countries followed after the British and American examples. Today, chattel slavery is rare (except in a few Muslim countries), although sexual slavery remains a huge problem.

It’s funny, though, how the Zach team insists on dwelling on the U.S.’s past misdeeds and failings rather than recognizing the lead the U.S. has taken in moving human values forward. I suspect also that their Jewish heritages (e.g., Christianity’s texts should be measured by the example of Martin Luther’s antisemitism; America is a “Protestant” nation, overlooking that “Protestant” is a very general label that applies to an enormously diverse group) also leaves them with an enormous “nativist” blindspot toward Christianity, which I can understand is very difficult to overcome. For them, it appears, the perfect truly is the enemy of the good and countries and peoples must not be judged by what they are today but rather by all the perceived misdeeds of their ancestors (unless they are Muslim or any other group in conflict with Judeo-Christian culture and values).

Charles Martel

Butler, my fave, still narrowly leading.

Danny, it occurs to me how contemptuously Zach treats you. You take a lot of time and give much thought to your replies to him and the best he can volley back is whatever low-hanging fruit he can cop after a quick cruise on the Internet.

A shame.

Gringo

Zachriel:You do realize that minorities, such as Quaker and Catholics, have always had to struggle for equality in America.
As I had a Quaker grandmother, I will address the Quaker side. Quakers came to the US for refuge, where they could practice their religion in peace. They could not do so in England. I never heard any word from my grandmother about any maltreatment of her or of any ancestor for being a Quaker.

Quakers were able to freely practice their religion in America. In the 300 plus years since my Quaker ancestors came to Pennsylvania, undoubtedly there were some instances of religious bigotry towards Quakers. But the overall picture says that Quakers have had a very good life in America. Two US Presidents, Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover, were Quakers, which implies a Quaker influence and success in America out of proportion to their numbers.

I have to laugh when “struggle for equality” is used to describe Quakers. From the beginning of their time in America, Quakers were more prosperous than the average. They were sober and industrious, and reaped the consequences of their behavior.
Yes Zach, the US is an imperfect place composed of imperfect people. One example of an imperfection is your hypocritically getting on your high horse about alleged bigotry in others, when you show bigotry towards adherents of the Tea Party by calling them “Teabaggers”- which refers to licking male genitals- as if you didn’t know already.

Danny (at #91); I agree with the basis of what you are saying; except for the “Dewey bashing.”
John Dewey is often quoted, though seldom read.

Even the PDF that you linked to is not really blaming what you call the “failed state of education” on Dewey. I could see how someone might see that; but the author of that slideshow is really very selective in presenting Dewey’s ideas without really backing up any of the claims; clearly this was written for a class in which the rest of the slideshow is left unsaid. Too many assumptions for the casual reader.

One of the things about Dewey is that he was a very prolific writer (If I recall he published over 80 books and over 150 journal articles; not “light” reading at all). And often his writings were worded in such a way that they could be interpreted in any way the reader so wished; didn’t even have to be taken out of context. That was one of the downsides to his being one of the first thinkers/writers in educational theory in the US; in addition to creating new ideas he was also establishing the language to be used in that field. Later writers took many of his ideas and phrased them much better. (After all, it is easy to interpret than to create)

I do find it interesting that Dewey himself often, even more so later in life, criticized those who “misused” his writings to advance their own political agenda in education. Or he would criticize those who took what he said too far. For example, he believed in changing education from a teacher-centric to a learner-centric system. Seriously, no one in their right mind should disagree with this; shouldn’t the education be for the benefitof the learner? (Teacher’s unions might not agree with that; but I don’t consider them to be “truly educated”). However, some “liberals” (quote marks because they weren’t liberal in the classic sense of that word; just ideologically liberal) took learner-centric to mean that the teacher would have little-to-no say in how the learners were to learn or what to be taught; everything should be turned over to the learner. Dewey called them out on this stupidity (okay, he may not have actually called them “stupid” but I think you get what I mean).

Dewey was also one of the first to advocate using the “scientific method” of education. That is to say; use empirical evidence to support the teaching/learning methods. If the evidence doesn’t support a learning method – change it or drop it. Kind of like No Child Left Behind testing, no? See, I’m using Dewey to support my education theory while some liberals will quote Dewey to criticize No Child Left Behind.

More to my point I will say, Danny, that what you are proposing about the failed state of education is, although not exactly, very much along the lines of what Dewey was talking about when he said that education is an important part of democracy. In your example of public vs. private (or parochial and home) schools; many (not all) public schools are failing because the “public” (i.e. those citizens who should be involved) have abandoned their civic educational duties. Private, parochial, and most certainly, in home schools those who should be involved (i.e. parents and teachers) are working together, as citizens in a democracy should work together, to advance the state of education.

In too many public schools the public has withdrawn from that duty and passed it to others to handle. In many of our public schools, we are now seeing the consequence of this “dereliction of duty.” Parents and some teachers are not involved and as a result those on the “extreme” have picked up the “burden of education” and remade it to fit their ideological agenda. It is also not just those on the left who do this; there are also far too many cases in which school board members around the country are trying to get their political, religious, etc. ideas into the class curriculum.

This also answer Charles M’s question (#95) “What gives the government the right to tell children how to have sexual intercourse, and in many cases to intervene in children’s private lives by recommending or making birth control available?” Schools that do not have active citizens, school whose citizens have given their civic responsibilities over to the “elite” have, in essence, given government this” right.”

I do wonder what Dewey would have to say about all this – publish another book, I’m sure.

Charles Martel: Notice the blanket indictment of the entirety of U.S. culture, a huge fallacy.

Actually, we said just the opposite. Instead of forcing people’s views into simplified preconceptions, try to understand what is actually being communicated.

suek: I apparently had the mistaken idea that we were discussing the last half of the twentieth century at least, and the entire twentieth century at most.

Legal segregation ended just about the time you would probably date the rise of secularism. You might want to specify the values you consider Judeo-Christian and see if you find your original statement is still supportable.

suek: all of your “bad” stuff is exaggerated with the exception of slavery, which ended in 1865.

Jim Crow is not exaggerated. It really happened, as did nativist movements, the persecution of religious minorities, the breaking Indian treaties.Danny Lemieux: The Zach{riel} team seems to have trouble separating out the sacred from the profane.

No problem whatsoever, but suek’s formulation indicated that the values were almost universally held. It only requires noting prominent aspects of the culture to determine the values.

Danny Lemieux: Christianity’s texts should be measured by the example of Martin Luther’s antisemitism;

Not at all. That discussion concerned how religious texts can and are variously interpreted to support hated. We shouldn’t judge an entire faith by its lowest common denominator.

Danny Lemieux: America is a “Protestant” nation, overlooking that “Protestant” is a very general label that applies to an enormously diverse group

Yes. However, Protestants comprised the predominent culture for a large part of America’s history, and during that time Catholic values were considered alien by many. Indeed, as late as 1960, there was a serious question as to whether a Catholic could be elected President. So were Judeo-Christian values almost universally held in 1960.

Danny Lemieux: For them, it appears, the perfect truly is the enemy of the good and countries and peoples must not be judged by what they are today but rather by all the perceived misdeeds of their ancestors (unless they are Muslim or any other group in conflict with Judeo-Christian culture and values).

Just to reiterate, it was suek who made the historical claim.

Charles Martel

Zach lecturing us about forcing our views into simplified preconceptions (as opposed to complex preconceptions, like AGW?) is like a tuxedo-wearing chimp telling a dinner party waiter which side to serve from.

Mike Devx

It may be useful to take another look at the suek-zachriel exchange:

suek: In the past, the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values. zach: Per your statement, we only have to look at U.S. culture to know what those values were. They included keeping slaves, persecuting Catholics, breaking Indian treaties, nativism, Jim Crow, and so on. Those aren’t the only American values, of course, but they certainly do relate to any notion of “universality”. You should be able to understand the point, but to make it explicit, you seem to believe in an imaginary past where your personal notion of Judeo-Christian values were universally shared.

Zachriel did in fact issue a blanket indictment of U.S. culture by saying “to know what those values are”. It is an all-encompassing statement. Actually, if you read carrefully, it is more exactly an explicit indictment of Judeo-Christian values. The correct answer by Zach would have been that those Judeo-Christian values were *not* in fact universally held. E.g., The great Catholic immigration of the late 19th Century certainly inflamed tensions in the Boston area to the point of murderous bigotry. Those who would claim themselves the most pious in the country attended the lynchings of Negroes in public parks, followed by the burning of the hanging bodies; pictures were taken of the people gathered for the camera, the charred corpses behind them in the background; the people grinning as though they were at a Sunday picnic. Had high-fives been in fashion at the time, they’d have been high-fiving between sips of iced tea. That’s hardly moral behavior when applied to *any* religious standard (with the exception of today’s Islamofascist fanatics in the Salafist branch of Islam).

It does no one any good to whitewash history. But it must be understood: For those like Zach, the fact that we *aspire* to greatness and yet have failed in the past, is enough to label us UNIQUELY evil. A standard is applied to the USA (and to Israel) that does not apply to any other country, anywhere in the world. No country, no people anywhere, can meet that standard.

We have come so far, so fast, and yet ZERO credit is given. Slavery is described as a uniquely American evil, when in fact America was part of the ending of slavery (at least its ending in the Western world; it continues in the rest of the world under the covers, under various guises). These days bigots of most stripes must skulk in the shadows, hide in anonymity on the Internet. Yet no credit is given. Not by Zach nor others of Zach’s ilk.

I will claim (as I think suek would) that it is precisely those Judeo-Christian values that have *allowed* us to make progress against the darkness.

But Zach prefers the sneering blanket indictment instead.

I agree with suek’s statement: the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values.

Zach parses it a bit differently: you seem to believe in an imaginary past where your personal notion of Judeo-Christian values were universally shared.

Notice the communitarian, socialist blanket phrasing: “universally shared” – which is something every single person across the country must “share in”. Suek said no such thing. Suek was speaking of the cultural *meme* that permeated nearly every corner and niche of the nation. *IT* was everywhere, even though never, of course, universally “shared” by all living, breathing individuals walking that plot of earth. Given human nature and our individual autonomy, that would be utterly impossible. Judeo-Christian culture itself did hold sway, however. Was it perfect? Hell no, not even close. We are not angels, and civilization is a thin veneer over barbarism (and barbarism still rules most of the world). The supports that prop up that thin veneer of civilization are being knocked away with ruthless enthusiasm by the Left, and that’s what’s got a lot of us mighty upset. For civilization is precious, and to see it declining and fading in the Western world is enraging.

Danny Lemieux

I suspect that at the heart of what you are saying is that Dewey’s views equate to a Rorschach blot.

You say, “In your example of public vs. private (or parochial and home) schools; many (not all) public schools are failing because the “public” (i.e. those citizens who should be involved) have abandoned their civic educational duties.”

I really can’t disagree with you there. One of the questions that I find difficult to answer is whether centralized government control exacerbates or helps failed school districts (as we have here in Chicago). From everything we have evidenced, government control does not help but instead makes things far worse. It is not so much that government supports the education as much as all the nonsense (teacher union rules, nepotism, corruption, disciplinary rules, etc.) that goes with it.

What would happen to failed school districts if all was surrendered to local control – would local citizens then start taking responsibility for their schools? And, if not, should it be up to the other citizens of a country to bail them out and try to direct the state of their education?

My own experience having been involved on the board of an inner-city Chicago parochial school, financially supported by other parishes, is that the inner city has many, many parents (and grandparents) that want their kids to have a good education. However, they are virtually powerless to affect what happens at the government schools. Too often, their kids go there to be corrupted by the gangs. As an aside, the cost of educating a child (and no, Zach: there is no discrimination that enters in admitting kids to this parochial school) at this parochial school is about half of that at a government school…with much, much better outcomes.

With my own involvement in private education and my spouse’s involvement in public education (she’s a teacher), my bottom-line conclusion is be shut down the Dept. of Education entirely and decentralize funding and control to state and local authorities. It would be hard to do worse than we are doing now.

MikeD, the clash of religions and cultures you describe as various groups entered the melting pot is to our credit, actually: there was no other country of the period where so m any different groups could mesh together into a society. Zach’s objection seems that to be that, because there was great friction as this process occurred, the entire process is invalidated. The credit should be given that that process occurred at all.

That is a very big part of what makes us unique (exceptional). If we see that cultural meshing occurring today in other Anglosphere countries like Canada and Australia, it is in large part because we led the way.

Zachriel: Those aren’t the only American values, of course, but they certainly do relate to any notion of “universality”. You should be able to understand the point, but to make it explicit, you seem to believe in an imaginary past where your personal notion of Judeo-Christian values were universally shared.
Mike Devx: Zachriel did in fact issue a blanket indictment of U.S. culture by saying “to know what those values are”. It is an all-encompassing statement.

As anyone with eyes to see, we explicitely stated the opposite: “Those aren’t the only American values, of course …”

Mike Devx: Actually, if you read carrefully, it is more exactly an explicit indictment of Judeo-Christian values.

Furthermore, we also explicitly stated it wasn’t an indictment of Judeo-Christian values, but of suek’s statement “In the past, the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values.” As he claims it was universal, that means we can look to American culture to determine what is meant by the term Judeo-Christian values. It’s the claim that is faulty, probably with regards to the assertion of universality, or perhaps equivocation on Judeo-Christian values. That’s why we asked for a definition.Mike Devx: The correct answer by Zach would have been that those Judeo-Christian values were *not* in fact universally held.

Again, that’s what we stated: Suek “seems to believe in an imaginary past where his personal notion of Judeo-Christian values were universally shared.”

Where you become confused is that we showed that suek’s statement leads to a contradiction. In this case, the notion of values being universally shared. Suek then restricted his statement to what is apparently the four-year period between the Civil Rights Act and Woodstock.

Mike Devx: For those like Zach{riel}, the fact that we *aspire* to greatness and yet have failed in the past, is enough to label us UNIQUELY evil.

We never made such a claim, and reject it emphatically.

Danny Lemieux: Zach{riel}’s objection seems that to be that, because there was great friction as this process occurred, the entire process is invalidated.

The objection is to using a post hoc notion of Judeo-Christian values when clearly, for much of U.S. history, Catholic and Judaic contributions were explictly rejected as a valid source of values. As this was prevalent, you can’t then say Judeo-Christian values were “almost universally held”, at least not without substantial qualification. For many Americans, for much of American history, it was the Protestant ethic, not the Judeo-Christian ethic. It took generations before Jews and Catholics were included.

The present use of the term Judeo-Christian dates to Progressives of the early twentieth-century, and has gained currency in the American Right over the last few decades, but you may want to make explicit what you mean.

The Left likes to pretend that reality and evidence can be obscured or even transformed by words. Take this as an example.

Furthermore, we also explicitly stated it wasn’t an indictment of Judeo-Christian values, but of suek’s statement “In the past, the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values.E

Z believes because he said something, that now it is true. That by saying he isn’t, that this erases the evidence of what he did. Z does not understand culture. Thus he never says what other cultural values there were. To Z, slavery is a “cultural value”. Which would mean the Indians and the Southern plantations owners had the same culture. In reality, that is false.

Culture is not such a simple thing uneducated and intellectual lax people like Z can grasp simply because he mouths some words to the effect.

In this case, the notion of values being universally shared.

As Martel have said before, Z has a problem with reading comprehension. Universal values for a single culture is neither a culture that accompases everybody nor a universal value system that applies to everybody. It is simply that, one culture.

Catholic and Judaic contributions were explictly rejected as a valid source of values.

This is inherently contradictory and full of ignorance. Protestants and Quakers are Christians. Anyone versed in even some theology would know that. Trying to butter wipe Judeo-Christian values becomes the same as saying the Romans had Judeo-Christian values when their Emperor converted to Christianity. It does not mean their culture was the same as ours, nor that they had the same values as us. The presence of slavery, Lutherans, Quakers, or anybody/anything else, does nothing to nullify it.

Mike and Danny, I believe you two have noticed by now that Z likes to lengthen his name. Even going to the point of writing in his own name when quoting you two. This is why I started calling Z, Z. If he wants to write in his name, all X characters, I might as well save on 3 of em. Right?

And on a psychological basis, it shows a serious case of rampant and on going narcissism for Z to be incapable of accepting shortened versions of his chosen moniker. Even going to the point of writing in his own name on purpose all the time.

That and the use of “we”, Martel, are signs of dangerous unstable elements to me. What say you Charles Martel?

Ymarsakar: To Z, slavery is a “cultural value”. Which would mean the Indians and the Southern plantations owners had the same culture. In reality, that is false.

The claim was that Judeo-Christian values were “almost universally held”. That probably wouldn’t include Indian culture, but certainly would include Southern culture. Indeed, it is implicit in our position that culture is not monolithic or unchanging.

Sorry, but the rest of your comment is incomprehensible.

Charles Martel

Ymarsakar: Wow, look at those Ivory Coast boy soldiers slaughtering the inhabitants of that village!

Zach{riel}: Slaughter is defined as the systematic killing of a subjugated human or animal group, often with the aim of total annihilation. Some observers say that it is an inhumane. Others say that it is inefficient.

suek: That mixed-fiber dress sure would be great to wear to Bookworm’s dinner party!

Zach{riot}: Many cultures disdain the mixing of different fibers, possibly because of ritual considerations. Some say the ancient Jews did so for that reason. Others say the Jews are the reason why the Palestinians are a failed people.

Danny Lemieux: Teaching children how to have sex is not a proper function of the goverment.

Zach{hive}: The government is a result of democratic processes. We think that perhaps the best way to determine the role of goverment in child sex is to lower the voting age to 12. Others say that perhaps the rate of illegitimacy among U.S. schoolchildren would drop if the Israelis would recognize the right of Palestinians to robustly practice their culture, which sometimes includes celebrating with bombs.

Charles Martel: Hey, Zacky, debate me in real time!

Zach{wuss}: Some in my hive say I should, especially the Perfesser, who’s our fastest Wiki-ist/plagiarizer. On the other hand, some say I shouldn’t. In any case, I am going to pretend, as always, that I can’t hear you!

Danny Lemieux

As Gandalf said of Gollum, ” Even the very wise can not see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill…”

Z’s team is young. What is clear is that they neither know nor understand Judeo-Christian religion and culture. Nor do they grasp the complexities of science and history. They may know something about the Torah, but they know nothing of the new Testament. They misunderstand both. They are still too young to understand (and forgive) human nature.

Their youth is evident in how they, bereft of knowledge and experience, feel qualified to sit in the comfort of armchairs and sling arrows at the people and culture that nurtured them, sneering at their values while simultaneously contorting themselves in unnatural positions to conform unpleasant realities (Islamic culture and religion) to their idealized world visions.

It is hardly by accident that they presume upon themselves the identity of an angel. They can pass judgments against their own peoples, history, cultures and traditions because there are not (they mistakenly believe) any costs to doing so. They can forgive the excesses of others (Palestinians) because for them, unlike the Israelis, it costs nothing. In their view, our nation and we the people simply do not pass muster to their idealized standards – but then, their own ability to live up to those selfsame standards has never been put to the test of life. They have not had to expend the blood, sweat and tears of our forebears, nor of those today who toil and suffer to render their bubble safe, comfortable and affordable. Any acknowledgment of the greatness and successes of their own civilization can easily be trumped with a “but 400 years ago, Martin Luther was an anti-semite”. It’s a youthful indiscretion, to believe that one elevates oneself by tearing down those around them. The young and foolish confuse this with “intellectualism” (as in, “if I can denigrate those around me, it must mean others will see me sitting on an elevated perch”).

That’s OK. With time, life’s realities will work mud into their eyes until, one day, they too will understand.

This being said, they provide a very useful role on this blog.

“…he was born blind so that God’ works may be revealed in him.”

Mike Devx

Re Zach 114:
I will agree that there have been, and are, other American cultural values that are not Judeo Christian values, and that you did call out that fact. I will also state that we are not writing treatises here, so we can’t hold each other to precise syntactical meaning. I can therefore allow that your opening line was NOT meant to be a blanket indictment of Judeo-Christian values, but rather perhaps of SOME American values not related to Judeo-Christian values. It’s unclear.

But suek’s statement still stands and I still agree with it. Judeo-Christian values did hold sway over nearly all of American culture. The fact that individuals and even some communities existed that did not themselves hold to those values indicates that they were outliers, is all.

If perhaps I was quibbling over your choice of word, you too are quibbling over suek’s choice of words. I understand what she meant, and she’s right. There’s no contradiction. And she’s not constructing any imaginary past.

The claim was that Judeo-Christian values were “almost universally held”.

Well, let’s look at the actual quote rather than re-interpret it via Monday quarterbacking.

At least to a certain extent, yes. “Raising” children is basically indoctrinating them with the mores and values of their culture. In the past, the US had a culture that was almost universal in holding Judeo-Christian values. Atheists and/or other religions/cultures were virtually nil. While the purpose of “education” is primarily one of teaching certain skills that the society deems necessary, it necessarily works within the framework of the culture and reinforces it.-Suek

The “thesis” of this paragraph is very clear. It’s about the transmutation of values through culture: not about values being universally held. That would be a misinterpretation and misquotation of what was written.

Here’s a sample of an actual disagreement that is on topic.

“The US had many cultures due to the various wars, conflicts, and migration of different people over the years. Thus I don’t think US culture can be spoken of in the singular concerning only a Judeo-Christian derived culture. In so far as education is based off of one’s culture in transmitting values and ideals to the next generation, I…”

Danny, heh kudos to you for taking some lord of the rings quotes and using em to cook something good up. Very poetic in the epic tradition.

Btw, Charles of Mart, have you noticed recently how Leftists like Barbara Boxer cannot stand being called things like ma’am? They demand to be called Senator or some such, like they are aristocratic barons being talked to by uppity peasants.

What is their entire issue with names anyway? First it was negroes, then it was blacks, then it was African-Americans.

They keep shedding their skin thinking something new will appear from underneath in the new spring. Something beautiful, but only the ugly comes out.

Many people say that because some people in the military risk their safety bubble, that this means that know what is going on.

But let’s go back to fundamental roots. People are still people. They are foolish and retarded, civilian or military. It’s just how it is. Experiences can help, but only a slim percentage of people will actually benefit from it. That is what I would say to those who would take the line that their favorite military Leftists (like the ones that work for Obama and agree with his policies) are the contradiction to our story. It is no contradiction, only a counter-point leading up to the grand finale.

he he, that is funny, but not far off the mark. While Dewey was consider to have been “progressive” he started as being called pragmatic. A much closer key word; but I think he really does defy categorization.

Yes, I agree that “government take-over” of schools tends to cause more problems than it solves mainly for the reasons that you state.

” . . . my bottom-line conclusion is be shut down the Dept. of Education entirely and decentralize funding and control to state and local authorities.”

You get NO disagreement from me on that one; You’re right in that it couldn’t do any worse than what’s going on now. Too many of the basics are being dropped because there is no money to pay for the basic stuff; yet the state government (and now the feds) dictate too much of what’s required without funding to support it.

On the other hand, I’m writing this with the TV news on in the background and they are talking about Charlie Shitwit, er, I mean Charlie Sheen’s one-man show. Now there is something wrong with the public when Charlie Sheen, with all his problems, etc. has sold-out shows across the country. Who the heck are these people buying tickets to go see him? I do hope that they are not the only ones showing up at school board meetings.

On that same other hand, Rutgers University just paid Snooki (from the gawd-awful The Jersey Shore show) $32,000 to speak at their school – “study hard; But party harder kids!” Now, that’s wisdom for the ages. (PS – don’t bash us folks from New Jersey – we can’t stand folks like her either; in fact we here in NJ call folks like them New Yorkers!)

Lulu; with stunt’s like what Rutgers did with Snooki – you do have a tough uphill battle – good luck!

Gringo

ZachrielThe objection is to using a post hoc notion of Judeo-Christian values when clearly, for much of U.S. history, Catholic and Judaic contributions were explictly rejected as a valid source of values.

The Bible was the most widely used and consulted book from the beginning of the American experience. Perhaps it is not so today, but it certainly was from 1600 to 1900. If a house on the frontier had only one book, it was nearly always the Bible. While the Christian New Testament was important, by no means was the Old Testament ignored. The Old Testament was a “Judaic contribution,” if I am not mistaken. Ever heard of the Twenty Third Psalm? Another “Judaic contribution.”
The Puritans saw themselves as constructing the “New Israel” in the New World. Sounds like a “Judaic contribution” to me.

While most of those immigrating to America in its first two centuries of European settlement were Protestant, there were definite Catholic contributions. Have you ever heard of the Calverts and Maryland, Zach?

Charles Martel

Here’s a question that will stop the Zachs cold in their tracks, because they will not know how to answer: What are Judeo-Christian “values?’ What are the things that the Zachs are so zealously claiming were never universals in American culture?

Zachriel: The present use of the term Judeo-Christian dates to Progressives of the early twentieth-century, and has gained currency in the American Right over the last few decades, but you may want to make explicit what you mean.

Zachriel: It’s the claim that is faulty, probably with regards to the assertion of universality, or perhaps equivocation on Judeo-Christian values. That’s why we asked for a definition.

Answering a question with a question. Thanks. Gringo will attempt an answer.

Gringo: The Bible was the most widely used and consulted book from the beginning of the American experience. Perhaps it is not so today, but it certainly was from 1600 to 1900.

Absolutely. Anyone studying American or European history must learn about the Bible. It influences everything from language to politics. The problem is that suek is using the term differently.

suek: I apparently had the mistaken idea that we were discussing the last half of the twentieth century at least, and the entire twentieth century at most.

Perhaps suek hadn’t thought it through, and modified the concept accordingly, but may have missed the mark. Because the term Judeo-Christian values is not always clearly defined, we asked for how it was being used. Your formulation seems more defensible. Except…

Gringo: The Old Testament was a “Judaic contribution,” if I am not mistaken. Ever heard of the Twenty Third Psalm? Another “Judaic contribution.”

There’s still a number of problems. As the Bible was used to persecute Jews and Catholics, it calls into question whether it is appropriate to call that very prevalent aspect Judeo-Christian values. But leaving that aside, there is a problem in the use of the term “value”. Biblical interpretation has varied so dramatically, from defending slavery and anti-semitism to pacifism and virtually ignoring the Old Testament, that it is hard to pin down exactly what you mean by “value”. It seems to be largely undefined. Indeed, we asked for a definition, and no one can seem to pin it down.

Gringo: While most of those immigrating to America in its first two centuries of European settlement were Protestant, there were definite Catholic contributions. Have you ever heard of the Calverts and Maryland?

Yes, and for many years, it was one of many *distinct* cultures. Indeed, the Protestants overthrew the government there, and passed anti-Catholic laws. So what values constitute Judeo-Christian values, ones that were almost universally held?

suek, we’re not just quibbling. Perhaps your original statement has merit, but it isn’t precise enough to know exactly what you meant. American culture has always had significant disparity in beliefs and values, so your statement has to be consistent with this fact.

Charles Martel

The use of “Judeo-Christian values” on this thread was first used in the context of teenage sex. It would be safe to say that there was a universal ethic in the country at one time regarding sex: It was licit only between a man and a woman married to each other; pre-marital sex and adultery were considered morally wrong; bastardy was considered shameful; sodomy was a perversion; and so on.

That set of “values” was nigh universal. The Jews, the Protestants, the Catholics all held to them. That doesn’t mean that people didn’t often fell below those standards or pervert them in some way (“bundling” led to a very high rate of illegitimacy in Colonial America), and pre-marital or extra-marital sex have always been with us. But even people who stepped outside those bounds knew they were taking a risk in terms of social approbation or, for true believers, even endangering their souls.

That universal is long gone. Except among the religious and some secularists, sex outside of marriage is an accepted, even encouraged (people f*** like bunnies on TV and in the movies, and, apparently, at LuLu’s school), commonplace. Sodomy, especially its homosexual forms, is trendy and no longer carries an ick factor. Bastardy is not directly encouraged, but the welfare state pretty much insures that high rates of it are with us as long as there are no stigmas attached to it or incentives for single moms to conduct themselves otherwise.

suek

Once again I started a reply, once again there was a flash of computer action and once again my reply disappeared!

That’s ok…I’ll settle for Charles’ answer.

But I must say – it really was a good question for a Sunday!

Charles Martel

Zachriel: Sunday is almost universally considered the “day of rest” except where it is not. The “sun” in the name comes from the bright disk in the sky that people universally call the “sun.” Not all languages use the term “sun” in the day’s name. For example, Spanish speaking peoples say “Domingo.” Some experts think this creates confusion, but others say it doesn’t. Saturday, named after Saturn, is the traditional sabbath of the Jews. Some say the Jews, who are oppressing the Palestinians, are natural-born oppressors. Other say that they are conditioned to be that way.

Charles Martel: It would be safe to say that there was a universal ethic in the country at one time regarding sex: It was licit only between a man and a woman married to each other; pre-marital sex and adultery were considered morally wrong; bastardy was considered shameful; sodomy was a perversion; and so on.

Marriage certainly isn’t unique to the Judeo-Christian traditions, but thank you for the clarification.

No, Ymarsakar. It was many Protestants who thought that Catholics weren’t Christians.

Charles Martel

Zach, you really need to try reading what I say more closely. I wasn’t aware that I claimed marriage is unique to Judeo-Christian traditions. That is your gloss on my text, and I assume it comes from your insatiable need to show us your command of every issue under discussion.

suek

>>It was many Protestants who thought that Catholics weren’t Christians.>>

Just because they think it doesn’t make it so.

Nevertheless, I’d like an explanation of the thought process that has brought them to that conclusion. I don’t think I’ve ever heard one.

suek

>>For example, Spanish speaking peoples say “Domingo.”>>

As in “The Lord’s Day”.

Which also was honored in most of the nation as a day of rest. In fact, many states had “blue laws” (don’t understand the color reference, myself) which meant that no stores were allowed to be open for sales. Except gas stations and restaurants? Not sure about that. Seems to me that 7-11 began to break into that ban.

Definitely a Christian thing. It existed primarily in the Bible belt, along with “dry” counties. Which still exist, I think.

Charles Martel

suek, those Protestants that disdain Catholicism as authentic Christianity refer to such practices or doctrines as infant baptism, papal infallibility, prayers to Mary and the saints, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, transubstantiation, indulgences, and confession as extra-biblical, even pagan, impositions on clear scriptural teachings.

I don’t want to get into the minutiae of the arguments, suffice to say that Protestantism in general relies almost exclusively on scripture while Catholicism’s three legs have always been scripture, Tradition and reason.

There was also the psychological need during the Reformation to justify the break with Rome by asserting that Rome had betrayed Christianity and that the reformers were performing a necessary housecleaning. Once authentic Christianity was restored, Rome had to be seen as an impostor that had been cast off.

Just because Z says it is so, doesn’t make it so too. Magic words and magic mushrooms. That and the Lucky Days unicorn flying over the rainbow defines the Left’s “superficial appearance” that covers up their serpentine inner darkness and malignancy.

Suffice it to say that Z’s conception of different ethnic, cultural, and religious views are not up to par with expected results. Definitely an F in grading.

Z is also, btw, evading the main responsibility of making and supporting his own thesis/point. Talking about what Catholics may or may not think about Protestants and what Protestants may or may not think about Catholicism, is going to do what to prove what point Z thinks he is not making?

suek

Others discussing more or less the same topic. Not exactly the same, but close: (some very good comments as well)

Funny how these things pop up. Almost as if there are people reading Book’s blog and not commenting – or at least not under their own names…and then go elsewhere and elaborate. (cue Twilight Zone theme…)